NY Court quashes attempt by Interactive Brokers’ clients to file amended complaint about improper account administration

Maria Nikolova

Judge George B. Daniels has denied a motion by the plaintiffs to submit an amended complaint against the broker saying that the proposed amendments would be futile.

Heather Hauptman and Timothy Moss, plaintiffs in a case targeting online trading major Interactive Brokers LLC, suffered a heavy blow on Friday, October 19th, as Judge George B. Daniels of the New York Southern District Court denied their motion to file an amended complaint against the broker.

Let’s recall what the case is about. Interactive Brokers’ clients brought a putative class action against their former broker-dealer, alleging that the company breached its contractual obligations by including certain exchange traded notes (ETNs) in their portfolio margin investment accounts.

In July this year, the plaintiffs sought to file an amended complaint claiming they had specified how and when they and Interactive Brokers established contractual agreements via the Portfolio Margin Disclosure Statement and other documents (the “2014 Agreements”) that prohibited Interactive Brokers from applying portfolio margin to ETNs.

Putting it otherwise, the plaintiffs tried to change their strategy by arguing it is not the Customer agreements that are at the heart of their claims. Rather, the broker’s clients alleged that additional promises and commitments by Interactive Brokers were made in 2014 and that these “exceed those imposed by FINRA.” The plaintiffs’ new claims alleged that the parties’ Disclosure Statement was supplemented and amended by the 2014 Agreements that specifically promised and agreed that Interactive Brokers would not include ETNs in its portfolio margin accounts, and thereby Interactive Brokers subsequently breached its agreements when it did so, resulting in substantial losses for the plaintiffs and other putative class members.

FINRA Rule 4210 was said to no longer be the predicate for the plaintiffs’ claims. The plaintiffs’ new claims arise from Interactive Brokers’ decision to implement Article 2175, which specifically agreed to stop trading ETNs in portfolio margin accounts without regard or reliance on FINRA rules or regulations.

The plaintiffs alleged that by providing portfolio margin’s risk-based margining treatment for open positions in ETNs and options on ETNs – such as the VXX – the broker breached its contractual agreements with its customers.

Judge George B. Daniels, however, did not find these arguments convincing and, on Friday, nixed the plaintiffs’ motion to file their amended complaint. The Judge explained that the proposed amendments would be futile.

Interactive Brokers’ customers asserted that their new “breach of contract claims now rest upon the theory that additional promises and commitments by Interactive Brokers made in the 2014 Agreements exceed those obligations imposed by FINRA.” However, the Judge noted, neither the Disclosure Agreement nor the 2014 Agreements indicate that Interactive Brokers agreed to assume obligations beyond those imposed by FINRA. According to the Judge, Interactive Brokers’ provision of the Disclosure Agreement to potential customers simply reflects its compliance with FINRA rules.

Because the 2014 Agreements, at most, reflect Interactive Brokers’ commitment to comply with FINRA’s decision, the 2014 Agreements do not impose any obligations on the broker in excess of those imposed by FINRA, the Judge said in his Order.

Read this next

Crypto Insider

Gate.io lists DeFiChain’s DFI token amid growing popularity

Bitcoin-based DeFi platform DeFiChain announced the listing of its native DFI token on Gate.io, one of the world’s leading cryptocurrency exchanges.

Digital Assets

Binance in discussions with Japan regulators to relaunch operations

Binance, the world’s largest crypto exchange by traded volume, is reportedly seeking a license to operate in Japan after its exit from the country four years ago.

Digital Assets

OKX Chain integrates .crypto domains to simplify wallet transactions

Unstoppable Domains, a company building Blockchain domain names, has entered a partnership with EVM and IBC compatible chain OKC (OKX Chain). This collaboration will grant OKC’s users the ability to simplify deposits and withdrawals within the regulated fiat-focused crypto-asset exchange.

Retail FX, Technology

MetaTrader’s iOS issue opens brokers’ eyes to other trading platforms

In a surprising (or-not-so-surprising) move, Apple has removed MetaTrader 4 and MetaTrader 5 from its App Store in a huge blow for the leading FX trading platform provider.

Retail FX

Pepperstone adds Capitalise.ai analytics and automated trading tools free of charge

“We look forward to bringing significant value to Pepperstone traders and making a real, positive impact in their daily trading habits. We are excited to welcome them on board.”

Retail FX

FP Markets wins Best Global Value Broker for 4th consecutive year at the 2022 Global Forex Awards

“We greatly appreciate the continued international recognition as at FP Markets we pride ourselves on these attributes and these prestigious awards are testament to the hard work from our global team to always provide our clients with the ultimate trading experience.”

Inside View

How to Engage Your Customer at Every Stage of Their Journey

As many as 89% of successful businesses say that providing assistive customer experiences is critical to their growth. That’s because a mere 5% increase in customer retention can boost profits by 25% to 95%.

Industry News

CFTC fines Chinese firms Chinatex and COFCO $720,000 for wash trading

Chinatex traders engaged in wash trading in order to liquidate a long position in the account of an affiliated company and re-establish the position in its own account, to the ultimate benefit of its parent company, COFCO.

Industry News

US-based operation of Brazilian broker XP fined $500,000 for recordkeeping failures

“Proper recordkeeping is vital to protecting our markets and market participants from fraud and manipulation. This case serves as another example of the Commission’s intent to vigorously enforce the recordkeeping obligations of its registrants.”

<